Hacker News Reader

Comment by rsaz | Hacker News Reader

I don't think anyone is advocating for only apartments and condos. If you have a family, can afford a car, and are willing to make compromises to be in a single-family home, that should absolutely be an option.

Adding multi-family homes just adds a new, cheaper option that increases density. There are lots of benefits to it, and its really reductive to say "The 'missing middle' is bad because I wouldn't want to live like that".

View on HN

Where do you add the multi-family homes? I don't see a lot of unused real estate in the cities I've been to.

I don't know how you can tell what is unused real estate vs vacant-but-owned real estate from the outside.

I also don't know how you can see into the 30-something-story windows of high-rise luxury condos to determine whether or not they are being used.

It's pretty easy to tell by cars in the driveways and lights in the windows.

No, it's not. Lights are often on timers and cars are often tied to houses for those with second homes in different locations, so as to make them appear occupied so squatters and thieves are discouraged from entering while the owners are elsewhere.

These are obvious considerations and I am surprised they did not cross your mind.

I see, so there is some kind of service that drives a car to and from a house and/or keeps the car parked but washes it regularly or every investor DIY this? How often does it happen you recon?

I, and all the other readers here, know you're intentionally misconstruing the idea. You're not clever, you're just empty-headed.

I am not construing anything, I am inquiring about the process that results in properties "often" uninhabited but having cars and lights to appear occupied. You are saying this is some well known and often happening phenomenon, if so I'd like more information. If such service exist I'd like to use it myself when going on vacation, why do yo become all defensive?

If it wasn't illegal to build multi-family homes in 90% of urban land in America, people would figure out where to put them pretty quickly. People figured out where to put the single family homes when the land was occupied by farms and forests.

People are willing to drive hours away to not live in apartments and condos. They already vote with their wallets. That said, California no longer has single home zoning, so we'll see in a decade how much it helps here.

They vote among the choices that exist and are legal to build.

I have my doubts about the CA change. Zoning is one of many tools that local governments use to restrict housing. Water rights, parking minimums, setbacks, impact fees, environmental review, permitting, historic preservation, architectural review, etc, etc, etc.

And in California, Prop 13 means its structurally unprofitable to allow construction of housing because over time the taxes on a home won't cover the cost to the school district for any children that live there. So its fiscally irresponsible for local govs to allow housing, regardless of any preferences the residents have.

I understand what you’re saying about schools, but it just isn’t reflected in reality. New homes are built throughout the state still. Property taxes are readjusted on building renovations and sales so eventually these buildings will get reassessed. Another way schools are funded is through the state income taxes. It’s already the case that a majority of funding comes from the state. If anything a city would want to have old buildings torn down, converted or sold to developers because that would immediately increase current and future property tax revenue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com